The Taxman's Web Spider Cometh

Juha-Matti Laurio writes "A five-nation tax enforcement cartel has been quietly cracking down on suspected Internet tax cheats, using a sophisticated Web-crawling program to monitor transactions on auction sites and to track operators of online shops, poker, and porn sites. Austria, Denmark, Great Britain, and Canada have joined The Netherlands in pursuing the 'Xenon' program with the assistance of an Amsterdam-based data mining company. Wired News reports that the Web crawler uses so-called 'slow search' to avoid creating excessive traffic on a site or drawing attention in the sites' server logs." The article notes that the US IRS will neither confirm nor deny using similar technology.

Comments

Re: the tax man cometh

[rustalot42684]

I guess this is further evidence that there are two things one cannot escape - death and taxes.

How's this work then?

[grassy_knoll]

From TFA:

The spider can also be configured and trained to look at particular economic niches -- a useful feature for compiling lists of business in industries that traditionally have high rates of non-filing. "For instance, weight control (yields) 85,000 hits, some for products ... also services," says Sweden's Hardyson.

Once the web pages are screen-scraped, Xenon's Identity Information Extraction Module interfaces with national databases containing information like street and city names. It uses that data to automatically identify mailing addresses and other identity information present on the websites it has crawled, which it puts into a database that can be matched in bulk with national tax records.

So the spider scrapes a publically available site for the business or shipping address, adds that to a database and then someone at a later point checks to see if there's an income tax form from that address.

Wouldn't that generate false positives if the billing address is, say, a post office box while the corporate tax forms are filed from the home office?

Re:How's this work then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look to Europe for a "solution" to that: Every website by or for Germans that isn't strictly private is required by law to link to an imprint from every page. Non-private includes every site with a banner ad, every site with regular editorial content and of course every for-profit site. So far this has been very profitable for lawyers who send costly cease and desist letters on behalf of competing businesses to site owners who don't follow that rule. Besides, most websites already identify their owner via the domain name Whois records...

Re:How's this work then?

[RexRhino]

Wouldn't that generate false positives if the billing address is, say, a post office box while the corporate tax forms are filed from the home office?

But unlike all other crimes, Tax Evasion is a crime where you are guilty until proven innocent. Tax authorities investigate, and the obligation is on you to prove to them that the money you make at your P.O. box is being reported at your home office.

Re:How's this work then?

[holdenholden]

I may be missing something, but I assume that this spider will not be respecting the robots.txt directives.

If I have a honeypot link on my website that human users don't click, then I would expect the spider to fallow the bogus link and tell me about itself: its IP address, user-agent string, etc.

I can either deduce the IP block that it is coming from, or the user-agent pattern, if there is some, and then block them on the .htaccess level. I seriously doubt that the robots will be coming from multiple networks, but if they do, repeat the above procedure with the next robot.

At some point somebody will build a list of IPs or user-agent strings. It is not like the INS will use TOR to hide its IP addresses. So it is just a matter of time. I for one am not afraid to welcome this robot on my site.

Re:How's this work then?

[stephenpeters]

At the moment the focus is most probably the large scale easy to spot online tax evader, however the tax man will eventually start to narrow down to the individual scale. Inevitably legislation will follow forcing online entities to provide transaction data to tax authorities. This brings up the interesting issue of identity. Just who is behind a particular transaction?, How does the tax authority trace its data back to a company or individual?. It is currently easy to rent an anonymous P.O. box, VOIP number or online server. What strategies will governments use to overcome identity issues?.

Money can be easily moved from one country to another and exchanged from one currency to another, using difficult to trace methods. Does this mean that money itself has become stateless?. Can international money flows be effectively controlled by governments?. Can a government really expect to follow money trails and efficiently tax in the future?. As large companies manage to avoid tax worldwide now is this a sign that governments are failing to apply tax law?.

With the US trying to control online gambling with the possible side affect of driving gambling underground, now is a very interesting time for watching government reactions to online financial transactions.

I for one ...

[mrvan]

I for one welcome our new octopedic taxiverous overlords

Re:I for one ...

[macadamia_harold]

I for one welcome our new octopedic taxiverous overlords

What do you mean "new"?

simple security measure?

[Travoltus]

Require logins in order to see addresses or any other identifying info. You have to do that to purchase anything anyway, on a typical site like that.

If the web spider doesn't have a login name, it can't see any identifying info.

Re:simple security measure?

[numbski]

You could do that. Or you could make good use of that .htaccess, robots.txt, and if it comes right down to it, your firewall.

Access logs will tell you who has been there. If the spider comes a knocking, block it with .htacess and robots.txt. If they decide to get sneaky and bypassthose, block it at the firewall.

It sounds reasonable

[Hao Wu]

If a man or a woman or a company pays tax payment but similar man or woman or a company doesn't pay it, then that is not fair.

The man or woman or company that is not paying fair share of tax payment should pay them swiftly, with grevious infliction of back-penalty payment.

Re:It sounds reasonable

[paeanblack]

If a man or a woman or a company pays tax payment but similar man or woman or a company doesn't pay it, then that is not fair.

Why do taxes need to be "fair"? They don't exist as some sort of mandatory punishment you commiserate with colleagues about, they exist to gather the funds necessary for governance and social programs. Fairness is far less a virtue than maintaining efficiency.

Consider this: below a certain income level, it costs more to monitor, collect, and audit the taxes than the government actually receives. What is the point of taxing those citizens? To be "fair"? What is the point of everyone else paying more taxes just to ensure that all citizens are taxed in some arbitrarily decreed "balanced" manner? It's sheer stupidity, and it's exactly the mindset that created the modern US Tax Code boondoggle.

It's not a difficult task to trim the tax code to meet two criteria: everybody pays less and the total receipts are revenue-neutral. What is hard is attempting to keep it "fair". Would you accept a new system where you paid 10% less taxes, but your neighbors paid 30% less? Has your standard of living actually dropped if your neighbors can then afford bigger shinies? How much extra are you willing to pay, just to maintain the self-satisfaction of "fairness"?

Fairness and efficiency are effectively exclusive. Everybody is a special case with special needs if you examine closely. This is neither new nor surprising. Yet we continually waste billions of dollars every April to rediscover the same knowledge, every year, all under the banner of "Fairness".

Re:It sounds reasonable

[the_womble]

Would you accept a new system where you paid 10% less taxes, but your neighbors paid 30% less?

No for two reasons:

1) Firstly they could bid higher than be for things we are in competition for, like housing.
2) For most people relative wealth is very important. "Noone buys a Rolls Royce because it is comfortable, they buy one to show how much better than are than everyone else"

Sorry I cannot attribute the quote.

I don't get it

[Perseid]

Mr. Spider sees an eBay store named Bob's Cat Toys. How do they know who Bob's Cat Toys actually is without issuing subpoenas? The address isn't necessarily listed anywhere until you buy something.

Re:I don't get it

[Kijori]

I don't know what the situation is in other countries but in the UK, at least, any site that sells things is obliged to display their trading address (and VAT registration number) publicly.

Re:I don't get it

[ray-auch]

I call bullshit: in the UK you don't have to be registered for VAT at all below the threshold turnover, so you can trade perfectly legally without a VAT number / registration, so you cannot be obliged to display one.

Re:I don't get it

[gnasher719]

'' Mr. Spider sees an eBay store named Bob's Cat Toys. How do they know who Bob's Cat Toys actually is without issuing subpoenas? The address isn't necessarily listed anywhere until you buy something. ''

They send an email to Bob's Cat Toys (eBay lets you do that). "Dear Mr. Bob's Cat Toys, this is Mr. Smith from Inland Revenue. We seem to have no records of your company. Would you please contact me within seven days so that we can fill out all the relevant paperwork and can send you your tax forms. ".

At that point, when you receive the email, your legal situation has somehow changed. If you don't answer, you haven't forgotten your paperwork, you are actively withholding tax payments and right into criminal territory.

Re:I don't get it

[Eternauta3k]

At that point, when you receive the email, your legal situation has somehow changed. If you don't answer, you haven't forgotten your paperwork, you are actively withholding tax payments and right into criminal territory.

They have to contact you with a medium that lets them prove you got the letter, like one of those certified letters. Otherwise, you can just say you didn't get the mail, cat walked over the keyboard and deleted it, etc.

Re:I don't get it

[Kijori]

Sorry, any site selling things above the VAT threshold must display the VAT number. It also doesn't apply to auctions. (although I'm not entirely sure on eBay's position here, don't they claim not to be an auction to avoid some requirement?)

User Agent?

[whoever57]

I wonder what user agent this uses and what the legitimacy would be of data used by authorities if either the user agent was spoofed or if it ignored robots.txt?

Re:User Agent?

[Joebert]

Tech: Boss, they've placed a robots.txt file on the site & our spider can't get in !
Boss: What's a "robots.txt file" ?
Tech: It's a list of addresses that spiders are not allowed to look at.
Boss: Is it encrypted ?
Tech: No sir, it's in plain text.
Boss: *sigh*

Re:User Agent?

[h2g2bob]

From the article "Den Uyl declined to say what user-agent the Xenon software reports itself as." So that means it's "internet explorer" I guess.

As for the legality, if you or I were to spoof the UA and ignore robots.txt, then it would be illegal. If the government spies on it's own citizens, holds people without trial and sets up secret european prisons for torture, then that's legal.

Re: the tax man cometh

[Snarfangel]

I guess this is further evidence that there are two things one cannot escape - death and taxes.

Yeah, but death only comes for you once.

Interesting.

[JKConsult]

I'd be curious to see how exactly they propose to spider a gambling site. Unless you've won so much money that your name is posted on the webpage (like the winner of the Sunday Million on PokerStars), I can't really see how this is going to work. And yes, I've RTFA.

In the abstract, I'm not against it. Tax cheats are tax cheats. Now, I don't claim my online poker winnings, but that's because they amount to such a piddlingly small sum each year that it really isn't worth my time. If I were to get audited, I'm sure I'd get busted, as the winnings deposit into my bank account, and should count as income. How they go about doing it is the key. If they just use publicly available information such as the aforementioned posting on the webpage, then fine. If you're dumb enough to win that kind of money and think you're getting away with not paying taxes, then you deserve what you get.

Re:Interesting.

[Fezmid]

Woah, I just saw a big spider walk by, read your post, make some marks in a notebook, and then walk away! Freaky!

Re:Interesting.

[iminplaya]

Now, I don't claim my online poker winnings...If you're dumb enough to win that kind of money and think you're getting away with not paying taxes, then you deserve what you get.

Yeah, baby! Right on! Hey, buddy. The amount don't matta. Just like Christmas, it's the thought that counts. Cheating is cheating. Fascinating bit of "logic" you got there. I have a teeny, tiny problem with people who think that a "little" cheating is ok, and that anybody who cheats more than they do is a filthy crook.

Tax cheats are tax cheats.

You think?

Re:Interesting.

[Broken scope]

Didn't you know? In the early years, skynet was one hell of a poker shark.

Re:Interesting.

[pla]

In the abstract, I'm not against it. Tax cheats are tax cheats.

Why? Why do people so readily accept the idea of "death and taxes"???

If our taxes actually went to reasonable uses, I'd agree with you. Infrastructure improvement, national -de-fense, international negotiation.

But no, instead we pay (in the US, at least) a third of our income toward fuck-all. I work so a quarter of the population who could work can sit at home and munch cheetos all day watching soaps. I work so some starving artist doesn't starve. I work so unappreciative kids can get their socialized babysitting and social indoctrination. I work so our oligarchy can squeeze their kids through low-GPA MBAs and perpetuate the lines of power. I work so we can kill arabs who inconveniently live too near "our" oil.



I can think of few more noble crimes than "tax cheat".

Re:Interesting.

[JKConsult]

The amount don't matta.

I knew I should have made myself more clear. Yes, I am cheating on my taxes. And yes, it's "just as bad" (I don't really think it is, and neither do you, because volume does matter, but we're both accepting this as part of the argument) as someone who sets up shady tax shelters to save billions.

What I was saying is that I win about $100 every year playing online poker. Yes, I could go to all the trouble of trying to get some sort of documentation, add it to my income, and pay the taxes. Or, I could pocket the $30 and forget about it. I do the latter. As I said, if busted, I would freely admit to it, and would accept the punishment, as I realize that I am cheating on my taxes.

There is a logic to my position. Part of the FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board) standards include the concept of "cost-benefit" and "relevance" to reporting financials. The first may not apply here, as it basically states that if the cost of gaining the information (depreciating, say, light bulbs) outweighs the benefits of the users of the filings having it, then you don't need to worry. The second does matter. It basically states that (as opposed to something large, like property or equipment), if you're IBM and you buy a $5,000 desk for someone, they could give a flip whether you expense it or depreciate it. Because it doesn't matter. I consider my $100 winnings online versus my salary and go with the latter option, that it's so small as to be irrelevant. If the IRS disagrees, then I'm willing to pay the piper.

Re:Interesting.

[iminplaya]

...I don't really think it is, and neither do you, because volume does matter...

You got me wrong, pal. I don't play that game.(Homey don't do that). Killing ten people is as bad as killing a million. Stealing one dollar is the same as stealing a thousand. I don't fudge the books with "cost-benefit" and "relevance" to reporting financials. I declare my income. I pay the percentage they demand. And do it again next year. I have no need to play the percentages of getting caught commiting fraud. If I think it's unfair, I'll say it to their face. I'll adjust my hourly rates accordingly. I might refuse to declare anything, but I will not defraud. It's just not worth it. There is no such thing as cheating "just a little". You either are, or you aren't. Your credibility account is in the red, sir

Re:Interesting.

[Rideak]

you guys are both being stupid.

you don't even have to claim it if you make less than $2000 off of it. And don't even try to come up with a retort because my brother works for the IRS.

Re:Interesting.

[iminplaya]

That's not what I'm talking about. My point is that I'll declare what's required. I won't try to hide anything. He thinks he's getting away with something, and that it's ok because it's "just a little". So you're kind of off base here. And my second cousin-twice removed, who works at the DMV in Kansas City and has a neighbor whose mother-in-law works in the Pentagon says I'm NOT stupid!

Re:Interesting.

[Joebert]

If our taxes actually went to reasonable uses

Have you been smoking crack, live in the basement, or are you just naturally ignorant ?

Re:Interesting.

[JKConsult]

Killing ten people is as bad as killing a million.

Oh, you're one of those "there's no such thing as moral relativism" people. Fine. If you think that killing ten people is exactly as bad as killing a million, then more power to your beliefs. We're not going to have a productive discussion, because we diverge too far on the basics.

Re:Interesting.

[iminplaya]

Well, let's just say that if you're one of those dead people it hardly makes any difference now, does it? And you're still committing fraud, if what you say is true about your winnings. You're following the footsteps of Charles Keating and Ken Lay. I'm sure they started out cheating "just a little" also. You suffer the same disease. Do you do the same to a disagreeable customer, or employer? Do you pad the bill or your time sheet "just a little"? Don't bother to anwser that. I have no way of knowing if you're telling the truth or not. Your "moral relativism" doesn't apply here, and if it does have a place in this world, you're giving it a bad name and not helping its cause. Your whole demeanor in this matter would indicate to me that you are not a trustworthy person to do business with, but in today's business climate I'm sure you will be very successful. You seem to fit right in. Hey, everybody else is doing it, so what's the problem, right? *sigh*

Re:Interesting.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I better not EVER catch you exceeding the speed limit.
Not even by 0.5mph, because that's just as bad as going 50mph over.

Re:Interesting.

[iminplaya]

No problem, I quit driving years ago. Your analogy is irrelevant. I'm not discussing breaking the law. The fraudulent behavior being displayed and defended have nothing to do with the law. It's the mindset. These people who say a little skimming is ok are at the very root of the problem. These are the watergate "plumbers" we'll be reading about in the papers. These are the examples they set for their kids and everybody else. But, since you brought up, I wouldn't mind seeing much heavier fines for tailgating and gliding through stop signs. And remember, Speed Kills :-Q~

Re:Interesting.

[destiny71]

Did you report that quarter you found on the sidewalk, picked up, and then put in your pocket?

Re:Interesting.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Killing ten people is as bad as killing a million.

What about cutting them off in traffic? Is that as bad as killing them? That's what this is.

Re:Interesting.

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Never mind the IRS. What are you planning to do if the FBI finds out about your gambling winnings?

Re:Interesting.

[iminplaya]

I'll check with my tax guy to see if I'm required to do so. That's what I pay him for :-) But since I don't have to pay a personal income tax here, I doubt that I do. If I deposit in the company bank account, you can bet I would. They count every single penny there. Talk about your paper trail...

Re:Interesting.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'm not discussing breaking the law.

Lol. There is no fraud without law to define it as so. You are just as morally relative as those you rail against.

Re:Interesting.

[GlacierDragon]

Yeah, I've never heard of a limit like that, either. However, you can deduct how much money you spent on gambling up to the amount of your winnings if you itemize, so it's moot anyway. I work with taxes, and the IRS employs a lot of people who don't know any more than anyone else. so I fully believe the brother works at the IRS.

Here's the IRS word on it: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc419.html

Re:Interesting.

[UnknownSoldier]

> Is the IRS going to spend $300 on an auditor to collect $30 of taxes? Think about it.

This is the government we're talking about...

Re:Interesting.

[bhsx]

I had a "family friend" who had become my mentor of sorts. When I was 8-12 years old he was that guy I knew (probably 10 years my senior) who had built all kinds of steam engines and generators that he kept in his bedroom. His father owned a company that rented jukeboxes, video games and pinball machines to local hot dog stands and such, and that family gave me an Asteroids stand-up machine for my 10th birthday.
He eventually enlisted and joined the marines, we all missed him for four years. We had a huge party about a month after he returned home for good. At that party he was showing-off a framed letter he'd received from the navy(marines). The letter was a bill that they had mailed to him for $0.01 because of a discrepancy while returning some of his equipment.
At that time stamps cost $0.20
So, while I see your point, consider that this is the government we're talking about, and that they rarely see the forest for the trees.

Re:Interesting.

[icepick72]

Hahahaha, you're right. Somebody give grandparent +Funny. Now that's ending a thread on a good note.

Re:Interesting.

[Technician]

Tax cheats are tax cheats. Now, I don't claim my online poker winnings, but that's because they amount to such a piddlingly small sum each year that it really isn't worth my time.

Is that total winnings or winnings over expences?

Those who gamble don't do the math.

If they did the math, they wouldn't gamble.

Re:Interesting.

[iminplaya]

There is no fraud without law to define it as so. emphasis mine

Hmmm...I'm afraid I'll have to disagree...

X gets the square!

Re:Interesting.

[alienmole]

I don't think the OP's really saying he's "getting away with something". He's just saying that for the amounts involved, it's not worth dealing with. This is less of an issue of "cheating on your taxes" and more of a question of being effective. Sure, you could spend your life filling out paperwork, but there are more important things to do.

BTW, if the OP is being truthful that he only makes about $100 a year from this, the IRS won't care either, so he's not cheating anyway. Which brings home the point that you should really get professional advice about this stuff, if you have a question, rather than either wasting time reporting stuff you don't need to, or wasting time worrying about not reporting stuff you don't need to.

Re:Interesting.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Lol! Quoting a dictionary.

First entry:

deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

Just about all advertising must be fraud since it all consists of sharp practice and often deceit such as claims of "the best," "number one," "ichi-ban" or words to that effect.

Oh, what say you, that's not fraudulent? That some base level of competence and critical ability is assumed? Then what moral relativism do you use to draw the line for how much competence and critical ability? Perhaps that line might be somewhere in the neighborhood of what the law defines it to do be? Ooops.

Re:Interesting.

[tgv]

You're just a total egotistic w*nker, aren't you? If you paid a little bit more, you could educate these poor people and their children in decent schools instead of forcing them to accept very badly paid jobs under conditions which I don't find fit for my dog, just so you can get your coffee cheap at WalMart, or send them to institutions that are grimmer than prisons, yet have a level of violence which the average Iraqi would consider excessive. Your way of thinking has brought your country to a fiscal and moral bankrupcy.

Re:Interesting.

[!eopard]

I'm sure that the depreciation on your computer equipment, the % of monthly internet access fees & electricity - plus the floorspace rental - would readily offset your online gambling wins. Unless of course you are good enough to quit your day job - in which case you'd have to declare it as otherwise you have no visible means of support.

Re:Interesting.

[pla]

You're just a total egotistic w*nker, aren't you?

I have direct access to exactly one perspective on this universe. Anyone who claims otherwise wants something.



If you paid a little bit more,

No. You can't solve the world's problems by throwing money at them.

That said, go take a peek at some of my posting history, and you'll see that I do support things like universal socialized medicine and state-funded higher education. My objeciton arises when I start paying for things I can't use... Yeah, I may pay for highways in places I've never visited, but I might someday. I also pay for medicaid, which I will never use because I actually have some work ethic (not a misguided puritanical glorification of work for its own sake, don't conflate the two - I simply believe in supporting myself, and will either do so or die trying). I pay for national defense that somehow means pissing around in a desert and making the locals more of a threat to my safety. I pay for a national drug policy that considers both recreation and enhancement the ultimate evils in medicine, while the elderly cut their heart-meds in half to make them last longer. I pay for heart-meds for people who can't bother losing that extra 200 pounds and cutting back on the grilled salted lard on a bun.



you could educate these poor people and their children in decent schools instead of forcing them to accept very badly paid jobs under conditions which I don't find fit for my dog,

Or, they could work. A minimum-wage job doesn't buy much, but for those who refrain from breeding, it pays for food and a cheap apartment. Throw in kids, and yeah, we can now evoke the wallet-loosening cry of "for the kids" when they live in squalor. The solution to that problem lies in the technology of Norplant (I'd say "self control", but let's stay serious here), not in taxing everyone else more.



Your way of thinking has brought your country to a fiscal and moral bankrupcy.

Again, take a gander at my posting history before making such accusations.

I recognize that we have problems, serious problems. I also recognize that they've persisted no matter how much money we waste on them.

If that makes me an asshole, then fine, I can accept that label.

But I will continue to stand on my soap-box and point out to whatever passers-by will listen that for all we pay, we still have poor, we still have hunger, we still need prisons (though as you point out, we MASSIVELY overuse them putting nonviolent offenders out of sight); we have schools with access to more knowledge-resources than ever before, turning out idiots; we have the best hospitals in the history of the planet, that 99% of the planet can't afford to use; we have a military that can literally destroy the Earth several times over, but we can't bring peace (naively presuming that as our real goal, of course) to one piddling little country.



Yet you say "If you paid a little bit more...", and have the nerve to call ME the total wanker?

Re:Interesting.

[iminplaya]

Lol! Quoting a dictionary.

So I guess the established definition of words is irrelevant. Next time I'll quote the much more authoritative Dr. Seuss.

Oh, what say you, that's not fraudulent?

I DID?? Where? How DO you come up with such nonsense? I love how you, and he (I don't really think it is, and neither do you, because volume does matter...) attempt to put your thoughts and little theories into my head. Yes, advertising IS fraud, and just because it's an accepted business practice and that most people make their buying decisions based on it doesn't make any less so. I don't encourage that type of fraud either, in fact I will disparage it as much as any other. Big fraudsters and little fraudsters think alike. They both say that a little deception or theft is ok, believing that their standard should be the world standard, and anything above what they commit personally should be severly punished. It is perfectly feasable to advertise information about a product without making fraudulent claims like, "best", "brightest", etc. Unless they can prove that they are. If I didn't believe in free speech, I would have it outlawed. But I do believe in free speech, so knock yourselves out. It is also perfectly feasable to compensate for changes in the tax rules without playing stupid little games, by adjusting what you charge for your product or labor. So no, there is no inconsistancy with treating both instances the same.

Look, I'm not going to get in your way. Do what you want. But don't complain about things like political or corporate fraud when the only difference is the scale. The thoughts behind it and motivations are identical. It seems to revolve around the misapplication of "zero-sum" that is used to justify this behavior.

Re:Interesting.

[iminplaya]

Sure, you could spend your life filling out paperwork, but there are more important things to do.

When it comes to taxes, this really is the crux of the matter for me. They can have my money, but here they want my time to do their work. Unfortunately, I doubt I can make an election issue out of this, so the rules are likely to be here for awhile. Fine, now I need an accountant, and you know what? I'm going to use him to drown the IRS in their own papers, in triplicate. As a matter of fact, maybe reporting things I'm not required to could make it more interesting. Spam them with unecessary information, while maintaining the pressure on them to proccess everything faster and faster. This might fix the problen a lot quicker than simply ignoring it and letting them think we need more rules. Another possibly is that that he's just using that as an excuse not to pay. He claims it's only $100. Maybe an "independant" audit is needed to verify his claim :-)

Look, my entire point behind this tirade of mine is that this kind of thinking is what gives us Enron, Halliburton, Spiro Agnew, and Watergate and it grows into all out war. I am merely trying to say that it starts here, with one little snowflake and grows into a deadly avalanche. I believe I have history on my side.

Re:Interesting.

[alienmole]

Look, my entire point behind this tirade of mine is that this kind of thinking is what gives us Enron, Halliburton, Spiro Agnew, and Watergate and it grows into all out war.

You have causation backwards when it comes to war. "Innocent" things like housewives' SUVs create demand for oil; the huge energy market creates a demand for a company like Enron; war happens because we can't afford to ignore Middle Eastern tyrants who have oil, the way we ignore African tyrants who don't have oil; companies like Halliburton help administer the war and its aftermath.

Back to your main point, companies like Enron and Halliburton love using accountants to bamboozle the IRS, including drowning them in paperwork. So the approach you're describing is equally likely to be where it all starts, particularly if you're drowning the IRS with information that you don't actually need to file.

But I hear where you're coming from. It's just that different people tend to react to these kind of things in different ways. I don't think it's so easy to claim that one way or the other is right, unless of course you've actually paid accountants and lawyers to research the issue, in which case all you can say is that you have a legal opinion that says you're right, but chances are the other guy can get a legal opinion to say he's right, too. It's moral relativism, law-school style.

This might fix the problen a lot quicker than simply ignoring it and letting them think we need more rules.

Uh-oh, you're beginning to retreat into a fantasy world... ;o)

Re:Interesting.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So I guess the established definition of words is irrelevant. Next time I'll quote the much more authoritative Dr. Seuss.

Because a book says so, huh? There is another book besides the dictionary that a lot of people think perfectly and completely defines life.

Yes, advertising IS fraud

Hey, at least you are consistent. Foolishly consistent, but consistent. You sure must hate living, being up to your neck in all of other people's immorality. Too bad you don't do anything about all these terrible people you have to put up with.

Re:Interesting.

[iminplaya]

Don't know about you, but I use the dictoinary to find the meaning of a word, not the meaning of life.

You sure must hate living, being up to your neck in all of other people's immorality.

Nope, couldn't care less. I'm not asking for morality. Do what you want, just don't complain when somebody does the same to you.

Re:Interesting.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Don't know about you, but I use the dictoinary to find the meaning of a word, not the meaning of life.

Well, either you are arguing about words or you are arguing about ideas. If you want to redefine your ideas so that they don't mean what you were initially arguing about, then go ahead. We'll all ignore you for being out of touch with reality.

I'm not asking for morality.

And according to a narrowly defined dictionary definition of "ask" that's true, but again irrelevant to the point of the flaming you started out with.

Good luck with your own personal form of relativism there.

Re:Interesting.

[iminplaya]

Well, either you are arguing about words or you are arguing about ideas.

No, I simply quoted the dictionary. It pointed out quite clearly that you don't necessarily need the law to describe fraud. I don't have a clue what you're talking about in this regard, maybe because you make no sense.

...but again irrelevant to the point of the flaming you started out with.

I supppose you could call pointing out one's same hypocrisy that we accuse our government and corporate leaders of something like that. That's a good way to avoid actually thinking about it. For me, it just provides more understanding of why the world is degenerating into the mayhem you see today. It explains how morons and criminals get elected to high office. It's hypocrites against hypocrites, cheaters fighting cheaters. In reality, from my point of view it's pure entertainment. I derive the same joy watching this as I do from watching the poor fools stuck in freeway traffic from my apartment window, all yelling and screaming and blasting their horns. It's like watching the monkeys on Nat Geo flinging their poo at each other. It seems that people get upset when I point that out. At first I got angry, then I pitied them, now all I can do is laugh.

Re:Interesting.

[JCMay]

Yes, we all know we can trust the IRS to give us accurage information.

get mining

[Anonymous Coward]

The software in question is called DataDetective (win32)
http://www.sentient.nl/

parent company
http://www.smr.nl/

Internet Tax?

[Srdjant]

From TFA: "...suspected internet tax cheats..."
The Internet is now taxed by the government? Huh?

Re:Internet Tax?

[adez]

The Internet is now taxed by the government? Huh? Of course they tax the internets!
Who do you think pays to have the tubes cleaned?

Re:Internet Tax?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Read: "people on the internet who are suspected to be cheating on their taxes."

details are sketchy

[PhantomHarlock]

After reading the article I'm still not sure exactly how it works. How do they know who is behind the particular auction ID? Do they have access to the auction houses' databases? It appears to only use whatever information is online.

Does it also use whois information for domains? Not sure what htey are doing to correlate information. Need more details!

--M

Re:details are sketchy

[kfg]

After reading the article I'm still not sure exactly how it works.

They've refitted the cat detector vans. Don't purr over your online earnings.

KFG

Re:details are sketchy

[WrongSizeGlass]

Need more details! They're crawling your post right now and will notify you of the details. ;-)

Re:details are sketchy

[owlnation]

Don't see myself how it would work for domains, unless they contact the registrar as ask for the information. As to listing sites like Craigslist, I can't see how the spider will gather anything. As to auction sites, that's easier, eBay already coughs up that information to Tax Authorities with ease.

Life isn't fair

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the way the tax code works.
Legally some people don't pay the taxes others do.
A man with a family and a mortgage pays less tax than someone without-eeven if he earns much more.
Two neighbors on either side of State line pay much different taxes because of where they live.

Extra-legally you don't have to pay taxes on money that doesn't show up on paper/electronic records.

Re:Life isn't fair

[ScrewMaster]

Extra-legally you don't have to pay taxes on money that doesn't show up on paper/electronic records.

Extra-legally you do have to pay taxes on under-the-table transactions, it's just that it's harder to catch you and extract the requisite pound of flesh. The IRS expects their cut no matter what.

Besides, "fair" is relative.

confused

[rolyatknarf]

Could this type of system also be used to compile a data base of people who make purchases from online stores? Could this then be used to send a bill to an individual for back taxes owed for online purchases? TFA contains few details as to how any of these government agencies has profited from this system. If all of my online purchases could be added up and then taxed then I could be in for a disturbingly large tax due bill from my state, or even from other states in the US.

Anyone know if this system has been considered for use in the United States as a means to tax online shopping?

Woohoo

[Taxman415a]

All your incomes (and assets) are belong to us!

Re: the tax man cometh

[balthan]

Three: death, taxes, and this stupid joke.

The funding for this program

[nightfire-unique]

.. was graciously provided by: citizens like you!

You know the old saying... death and taxes.

Re:The funding for this program

[Handover Phist]

Yeah, but after taxes death is just a tired feeling...

This was on different news sites before

[guruevi]

Actually, they started a few years ago. According to the 'taskforce' they aren't targetting single resellers on e-bay. They are targetting (pseudo) companies that sell large amounts of stuff and thus also generating lots of income through these sites. Usually such sites also want to appear legit to their customers and probably are (except for their taxable income) also legit and thus have their contact information, website and address with the auction or at least a link to it.

I have however doubts as to how 'enforceable' this is since

1) where is the sale closed as constituted by law, it's on the internet on a server somewhere. Did you close the sale on e-bays servers in the US (which might be in another state than both buyer and seller), on the buyers computer or on your own computer.
2) where is the company then located as doing business. If they didn't file the paperwork needed to constitute a full business, and they sold something, where exactly are they doing business and thus in what state/country are they looking to be persecuted under
3) is it even legal for a government to do this, collecting evidence out of collated pieces of data in a remote database and
4) is it even legal for governments to tax those income, given that there are people that say taxes aren't constitutional (in the US there is currently no law that says we have to pay taxes) and that that income generated might be reselling stuff that has already undergone sales and income tax (second hand stuff)

Re:This was on different news sites before

[gnasher719]

1. Where is the sale closed? Doesn't matter. You have to pay tax on your profit, and VAT on the sales.
2. Where is the business when they don't file paperwork? If they catch you, that is where the business is unless you can proof that it is elsewhere. Which you can't because you didn't file any paperwork.
3. Is it legal collecting publicly available data? Of course.
4. Is it legal for the government to tax income? Want to bet?

Re:This was on different news sites before

[guruevi]

1. Not necessarily. If I order stuff from a website (eg. Apple), I usually don't pay VAT (here in the US) because it's interstate sales while going to the local Apple store does get me 8% added to the sales price for tax.
2. You might have a point, although proving jurisdiction is going to be difficult
3. The government can't just collect data, submit it to a court and say you did "Bad Things (tm)". That's why we have a constitution, search warrants, the burden of proof and so. Of course some people in our government wish they could just tap into your phone lines and bank accounts without any of that.
4. And thus concluding from the above, there are people here in the US that are putting that to the test, I recently saw on the news a guy that is having his home ready for 'urban warfare', posted his property with big warnings that the government isn't allowed to come on his ground. The IRS is not a part of the government, it's a separate entity of course endorsed and working for the government but it's a separate office just as the CIA, NSA and FBI. And actually, since the right to labor is in the constitution, it cannot be taxed by the state (Murdoc vs. Pennsylvania). Compensation for Labor is your property and, as such, is an "item of income, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government " and is, therefore, excluded from Gross Income and exempt from tax under Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code!

Re:This was on different news sites before

[jrockway]

4) Dude, have you read the 16th amendment?

16th Amendment
  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Re:This was on different news sites before

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Misinformed doesn't even COME close. More like 'malinformed'.

Let's see...

1. First off, VAT and sales tax are two very different beasties (though they seem similar based on how they're assessed against the consumer on the end.) In fact, if you purchase something from a retailer overseas online, you will, indeed, be paying VAT if the locality assesses it. And if you're living in CA and order something from Apple, you can bet your bippy that Apple will make sure to tack on CA sales tax.
3. No, but the government can gather publicly accessible data, and using it, build a case that the data proves that you have, indeed, been a very naughty boy, and present their case to the court, buoyed by the data - hell, that's the definition of prosecuting a case! Now, there is some issue about whether or not the government should be allowed to buy information harvested by ChoicePoint et al. (or even if such data aggregation in the private sector should be allowed), but that's another subject (and one worthy of discussion.)
4. Please, try one of those arguments in court. Just try. You'll soon learn exactly HOW fast one can me hit with a contempt of court charge. Because, amazingly, you're NOT the first guy who thought these ideas up (and you'll definitely not be the last.) And the courts have ruled against them so many times that in the court's eyes, you're willfully not taking things seriously, and penalize you accordingly (hence why you'll now have a contempt charge to accompany your tax evasion.) I'd advise you to take the time and read through this - not only will it explain WHY those arguments fail, it has several of the many, MANY cases involved listed.
Oh, and the IRS is very much a part of the US Government wholly - it's a branch of the Department of the Treasury. All of the other agencies you listed are wholly part of the US Government, as branches of other departments of the executive branch. Finally, there is NO SUCH THING as "Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code". The IRC is Title 26 of the United States Code, and is then subdivided into ~6600 Sections. (It pays to not just copy and paste.)

(Heh, the captcha is "excrete". Make of that what you will.)

Re: the tax man cometh

[kfg]

Yeah, but death only comes for you once.

Well can you tell him that? I don't mind the company, per se, when spends some time sitting at the foot of my bed, but I could do without the anticipatory gleam in his eye. It's very disconcerting.

I think he's hoping that a bit of insomnia might just push me over the edge.

KFG

I don't see the privacy implications....

[lkypnk]

This is for people who are making a sizeable chunk of income from selling services. This is no different from a tax collector walking into some sort of shady store in a back alley which doesn't file taxes and auditing it. When you post something online on a site like eBay, you would expect everyone to see it, after all, wouldn't you?

Re: the tax man cometh

[iminplaya]

That's not true. Sometimes it misses, and will come back at you again and again. It's the telemarketer that won't take no for an answer.

Oh no!

[Duncan3]

But... but... Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!

If the Internet wasn't income and sales tax free, it's just the same garage-sale and China*Mart quality junk for the same price as the big blue room by the time you add the 15$ shipping on a $2 item...

Crap, now I have to go outside.

In the UK

[joe 155]

it is worth noting that (in the UK) the tax men don't need to be able to prove anything has actually been done wrong in order to follow up with an investigation - at which point you have to prove that you are innocent rather than them having to prove guilt. They can ask for your tax returns and bank info etc. for the last 10 years, if you don't have it its because you're committing tax fraud... I guess this might just be able to point them in the right direction rather than doing all the work, so even with just a name it might be enough...

I just hope I don't have the same name as someone whose on the make

Re: the tax man cometh

[identity0]

Now, if only someone would invent a spider that could kill, then you won't be able to escape either on the internet...

"killspider -9 Anonymous Coward"

Another idea, too

[Travoltus]

If the IP address is from a known list of Government sites or any known spiders, redirect them to pages free of personal information.

This would also be useful in keeping spiders armed with manually-created website logins from slurping down tons of personal information for private databases... oh crap, I'm giving them ideas!

Standards ?

[billcopc]

Now then, shall they honor robots.txt ?

User-agent: TaxSpider
Disallow: /

But really all this means is you can file a tiny tax report for your auction/poker/porn business and get away with it, as long as you file something. How will this spider tell them whether I made 20'000 or half a million from online business ? It won't. If their method of finding tax evaders depends on published HTML, I think they're screwed from the get-go. What if the address isn't in text form, but rendered to an image, overlaid on fancy graphics ? They should be obtaining records from whatever payment intermediary is involved whether it's a bank, Paypal, or a 3rd-party credit card processor. Just having any tax report from a given address is not proof that all income was truthfully disclosed.

At the end of the day, it's still a wasted fight. States argue over where taxes should be levied. Sender or receiver ? Or maybe it should be in the state where the web site is hosted. It's all just a bunch of bureaucrats trying to claim something they had no part in. My logic is that if there is no physical involvement, there should be no taxation. Playing poker online doesn't incur any costs to the city where I live; it doesn't make use of its roads and municipal services, it doesn't burden the healthcare system with injuries or violence (e.g. bars). In fact, whether I play for fun, or wager real money has no effect on anyone but the players and the "house". This obsession with taxing everything is a fallacious concept that underscores the root issue: government is sloppy with its resources. They make up these schemes to swindle always more money from the citizens, only to piss it away. Government is supposed to act on BEHALF of the citizens, in their best interests. If government were run like a regular business, with real risks, goals and accountability, it would fail overnight. It is failing right as we speak, as we witness more and more people moving away to lower-taxed nations. When the cost of government exceeds the value of its services, those who can, leave.

Used items?

[phorm]

And how about items that are used? How do they differentiate?

The taxes have already been paid, so in this case wouldn't the online auction fall in the same category as garage-sales and buy-and-sell ads?

Not that the government doesn't already happily double-dip elsewhere (houses, vehicles, etc)...

Even Better

[earthforce_1]

If you detect the spider, you could quietly redirect them to a honeypot full of bogus personal data and useless links to crap their database and make them waste time sifting through plausible but useless data. The generated "customer" names and addresses can even be real, just combine random first and last names plugged into http://findaperson.canada411.ca/ and add the returned names and addresses to your customer database. Voila!

( I was recently screwed by the taxman despite making rigorous efforts to adhere to their byzantine rules, so I have no longer have any moral qualms about helping others fight them )

Re:Even Better

[StikyPad]

( I was recently screwed by the taxman despite making rigorous efforts to adhere to their byzantine rules, so I have no longer have any moral qualms about helping others fight them )

I believe that everyone should pay the taxes they owe, and underreporting raises my tax burden as well as the national debt, so I do have moral qualms about helping people evade their responsibilities. Additionally, if enough people stopped paying taxes, it would adversely affect the people who depend most on tax dollars, which are usually the people most ill-equipped to care for themselves. I'm sorry for your recent incident, but the correct way to fix the process is to raise public awareness of the problem and/or elect people who will change it, not by advocating or assisting in evasion.

"I was screwed so screw them," is an immature and unproductive position.

Good Reason To Protect Your Websites

[cvos]

This seems like one of the only reasons to consider website cloaking. After all, you can opt out of having your site indexed by Google or other search engines, you should have the right not to be snooped upon by a federal agency. If the government wants to snoop in your personal business, you have the right to defend yourself against their user agents.

The Patriot Act and other invasions of privacy such as the IRS scraping websites are indications of a severely paranoid government that is wasting taxpayer dollars on dubious projects.

If you tried to scrape any .gov site you would be visited by an army of Men In Black and you may never be heard from again.

The irony of this is the websites engaging in truly criminal activity will easily be able to cloak their websites and keep personally identifiable information from the government agent web scrapers.

Re: the tax man cometh

[Aehgts]

I think Hilltop Hoods lyrics fit this nicely:
"If life's a bitch then death's a slut
'cause death comes for everyone and when it's your turn you're f#$ked"

Re: the tax man cometh

[kfg]

I had to come back and post again when I saw the current Slashdot FOTD is:

"There are no winners in life; only survivors."

Well, I got a clue for ya'll; there are no survivors either.

KFG

Re:The Federal income tax is unconstitutional

[Watson Ladd]

The constitution disagrees with you.

Come to America

[WindBourne]

Yeah, we send citizens as soldiers to other countries to die, but tax the hell out of them for the privilege. Niro would have been proud.

Re:The Federal income tax is unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, of course, you could realize that Russo is playing word games. And not really good ones at that.

This FAQ explains why Russo's logic breaks down.

Re:The Federal income tax is unconstitutional

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Are you one of those whackjobs that claims the relevant ammenement is invalid because not all the states ratified identical texts?

Re:The Federal income tax is unconstitutional

[westlake]

Anyone who thinks there is a law requiring US citizens to pay taxes should watch Freedom to Fascism by Aaron Russo.

does Netflix deliver to Club Fed?

Re: the tax man cometh

[KUHurdler]

I avoid the whole taxing problem by simply not making any money...

All direct Federal taxes are unconstitutional.

[RKBA]

Wow, I thought my Karma would get mutilated, but right now my original message is at +4!

Please watch the video before you comment. It addresses each and every point you have all brought up. Most of all though, actually read the Constitution sometime. It's written for the common man and is easily understandable by anyone who will take the time to read it with care. Pay particular attention to the two different types of taxes that are authorized by the Constitution (hint: the 16th Amendment has nothing to do with it according to the Supreme Court).

Re:All direct Federal taxes are unconstitutional.

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

I have not watched the video because I have a general policy of not watching videos online.
Why am I replying anyway? Because I am reasonably sure that the 16th Amendment of the Constitution is, in fact, in the Constitution. Therefore, the taxes it authorizes are, in fact, authorized by the Constitution.
Let me guess which taxes you think are authorized: sales & property?
I'm not saying that the gov. couldn't decide the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court pretty much did that to the 9th Amendment when Rehnquist said that the existence of unenumerated rights didn't require the courts to consider what those rights might be. But it looks unlikely from where I sit that the 16th will get that treatment.

IRS Regression

[Hortense Yaya]

This sounds like it is, or would be, a step backward for the IRS. Computer programs are not as singleminded or unyielding as IRS agents.

Re:IRS Regression

[tehcyder]

Computer programs are not as singleminded or unyielding as IRS agents

Maybe so, but they have better social skills.

Re:Intent

[Technician]

User-agent: TaxSpider
Disallow: /

Clearly an attempt to hide tax fraud.

Better to allow known good User-Agents first such as; Google's spider, Yahoo, MSN, a few compatible browsers and then use;
User-agent: all
Disallow: /

This looks like permitting known compatible spiders and browsers and trying to keep e-mail harvesters out. Now you have a plausable excuse other than tax fraud.

What about Google?

[Kadin2048]

Unfortunately, if you present different data to spiders than you do to normal surfers, you'll find yourself booted out of Google and other automated web indexes, which can be a fate worse than death for many Internet businesses.

Giving one result to government IP addresses and another to private sector addresses would work for a time, but it would be trivial for the government to recruit some private-sector contractor to do the crawling for them, and that would be the end of that game. So if you wanted to go down this route, you'd have to block all spiders (somehow), and that would effectively knock you off the web, unless you derive all your traffic by handing out business cards with your URL printed on them.

Re:What about Google?

[KDR_11k]

Of course if a lot of businesses do that the govt will try a few more tricks (making the spider report itself as IE7, make an agreement with AOL and a few other ISPs to use IPs from their block, etc).

robots.txt

[Kadin2048]

As for the legality, if you or I were to spoof the UA and ignore robots.txt, then it would be illegal.

Can you cite any precedent to show that this is the case? I was under the impression that robots.txt was merely an agreement that many web-spidering operators had agreed to follow, and was without any real tested legal standing. It seems to be at most a sort of "gentlemen's agreement" that most everyone has agreed to follow, but that isn't really enforced.

Re:The Federal income tax is unconstitutional

[iggymanz]

Great link, Evans does very well with the Income Tax amendment issues. on an unrelated note, too bad his Federal Reserve section totally ignores the truth of the history of international banking and the economics of the national debt.

Not just government.

[Kadin2048]

It's not just the government that does things like that.

I used to have around somewhere, a dividend check from a rather large (think "blue" chip) company, that was for an amount significantly less than the postage to mail it to me, even taking into account discounts for bulk mailings, etc.

I was eventually told that the reason these companies do this, is because the paperwork associated with reporting unclaimed dividends (which have to be put into some sort of escrow fund for a long period of time) is greater than the loss they take on mailing the check out. So they'll cut a check in virtually any amount, just in the hope that someone will cash it, and they won't have to deal with it ever again.

I cashed the check. I can only hope that I was doing somebody a favor, somewhere, because it didn't even buy me a cup of coffee.

Sweet!

[nighty5]

Now I can claim the tax offset from my online porn subscriptions.

Profit!

Re:oMg Bu5h is th3 5ucK...

[alienmole]

George Bush set a bad example for the rest of the world, now they're copying his tactics.

Re:The Federal income tax is unconstitutional

[fyngyrz]

You might ask him if he (a) signed the constitution, (b) was represented by someone he voted for at the creation and instantiation of the constitution, (c) or was involved in crafting the constitution itself.

Because otherwise, it's just a 200 year old document a bunch of dead guys he didn't know cobbled up and agreed to. They don't represent him unless he says they do, either by oath or affirmation. You can't commit me to a document you design and sign; I'm only committed if I freely sign it. Coercion doesn't count.

Also... from the government's point of view, they abandoned the document some time ago. There is very little in it they take seriously these days.

Having said that, pay your taxes or they'll kick your ass. It's just that simple. It is compliance enforcement by violence and coercion; not legitimate obligation, and not agreement.

Re: the tax man cometh

[ne0n]

I guess this is further evidence that there are two things one cannot escape - death and taxes.

Yeah, but death only comes for you once.

 
Not if your name is Rincewind :)

Re:The Federal income tax is unconstitutional

[stinerman]

Being a social contract theorist myself, you do bring up very good points. The main problem is that the federal government was mostly an agreement among independent states to regulate each other. It was a "more perfect union" than the old confederacy. The idea that the federal government would be regulating individuals was quite foreign at the time. Of course, now after many amendments, Supreme Court decisions, and the like, this is no longer the case.

In my home state of Ohio, we have to approve the state constitution every 20 years. This makes sense in the framework of social contract theory. If the constitution is given a vote of "no confidence" we vote for delegates to change it. I would be for such a plebicite for the US Constitution as well since it directly regulates us these days.

Regarding what would happen if you had a minority view and you do not agree to the rules of society, I don't have much of an answer. Choosing to remain in the country is a very lame way of trying to prove capitulation to the government. Therefore, I do believe a citizen should be allowed to effectively opt-out of government if s/he wishes to. Of course, that means no taxes, but it also means no services. Have fun getting to work with your private highways.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

What the article doesn't tell you...

[GuyFawkes]

Articles like this are a lot like the television licence (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/) or road fund licence (http://www.dvla.gov.uk/) FUD, (incidentally if you google "road fund licence" the increasingly irrelevant google search will give ebay as an option...) which goes along the lines of local ad campaigns saying "we know there are 14 houses in Letsby Avenue with no TV licence" cos their database says so, I don't have a TV, but the presumption is that everyone does have a TV, and anyone who doesn't is a liar and a licence fee dodger.

In the Uk as far back as 1980, so before everything except mainframes in any meaningful sense, Banks were obliged to notify the tax man of any ammounts you had if balances or individual transfers were over 300 pounds.

While these articles are FUD "we know what you are doing on e-bay, so pay up before we nail you", which will collect some people along the way, the reality is the system as advertised cannot work, my ebay handle is not my name, my ebay address is my mothers house (when I signed up for ebay I was moving, just not sure where, and have never bothered updating) and most of my transactions have been in cash, and I have bought and sold expensive capital items like vehicles on ebay.

Far Far Far easier to simply crawl ebay for completed sales, total amounts, large capital items, and then match these amounts and dates to bank accounts, aha, ebay user "taxfreetrader" is Joe Bloggs.

Of course a huge number of transactions are paid via paypal, so there is an electronic record with an even better method of searching and matching.

People who regularly deposit 1000 bucks and over for single items may get busted, people who regularly transfer 1000 bucks and over from paypal may get busted, people who believe this crap will turn themselves in, everyone else who is smart and deals in cash or equivalents such as Postal Orders will not get busted, except perhaps second hand from the person you sold to or bought from getting busted, and them grassing you up.

The other things they are looking for that this can help to detect is VAT (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/T axes/BeginnersGuideToTax/) carousel fraud (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/economic_tr ends/ETAug03Ruffles.pdf)

The average guy on the street like me with 150 feedback spread over 3 years has fuck all to worry about.

And I say unto thee

[mrmeval]

You shall have all the government you deserve.

You miss the point

[Overzeetop]

You don't pay taxes because the government does all the little things you want it to. You don't pay life insurance to get rich. You don't pay health insurance so you can have a heart attack. You dn't put money into retirement accounts because you just don't need the money now.

You do thses things because at some point, you - or your family - will get a benefit. At some point you're going to need that stuff, and it would suck royally not to have it. If you're against abortion, do you forego health insurance because your carrier covers abortions? It's your money that's paying for abortions, after all. Of course, it's everyone esle's, too.

Taxes pay for public services. Did you got to public school? If so, could you have afforded to roughtly $160,000 it would have taken to send you to private school? What about the "poor" kid who went to school instead of growing up on the street (since his parents didn't have the $160k), and ended up not deciding to join a gang and end up gunning down your wife 'cause he needed the crack money? Things the government provides affect you in many ways, most of which you are apparently unaware. There are a lot of things I don't agree with in the government, and I think it's way too damned big. I've also benefited directly from some government programs (got a roof on my community center a few years ago - pure pork; I still have mixed feelings about it). Thing is, the system works better than having no system at all. Really.

Besides, if you don't want to pay taxes, that's fine - just don't make much money.

Re:You miss the point

[khallow]

You don't pay taxes because the government does all the little things you want it to. You don't pay life insurance to get rich. You don't pay health insurance so you can have a heart attack. You dn't put money into retirement accounts because you just don't need the money now.

The government pays for my health insurance only because the state of California currently is my employer (I'm a graduate student). If I were employed elsewhere, the government wouldn't pay for my insurance. Retirement accounts aren't insurance, but a transfer of wealth from the employed to the retired. It's tolerable when there's a lot more workers than retirees. When there isn't, they have to skimp on benefits in some way.

You do thses things because at some point, you - or your family - will get a benefit. At some point you're going to need that stuff, and it would suck royally not to have it. If you're against abortion, do you forego health insurance because your carrier covers abortions? It's your money that's paying for abortions, after all. Of course, it's everyone esle's, too.

No, if it were possible, one would not buy insurance that covers abortions. You're paying money for a service you don't use. My take is that the government is the insurer of last resort. That means that if someone does sufficiently great harm (eg, nukes New York City), then it's the government who ultimately will put the pieces together. I accept that the primary legitimate function of government. But there's plenty of spending and plenty of bad choices that have little to do with that role. For example, US Social Security doesn't fit because it pays out to everyone whether they need it or not. The US funds has a number of way too generous subsidies in agriculture (eg, the notorious subsidies in peanuts, sugar, corn-based ethanol, and honey), in aerospace (eg, NASA "cost plus" contracts to big aerospace companies to build Shuttle replacement prototypes), in defense (many government supported oligopolies and monopolies here), transportation (California highways are traditionally funded with a large helping of Federal money), and education (those student grants and loans go a long ways to explaining why college education is so expensive).

Government also creates a great deal of rent-seeking. For example, health insurance and health care is more expensive in general because people have incentive to consume as much health care as possible. Much of that coverage is mandated by law. For example, I have a policy, through no choice of my own, that includes a few hundred dollars per year of dental and other health care spending. Ie, I can use it on checkups and elective surgery. I chose not to, but I imagine most people use that up each year so that the policy is several hundred dollars more expensive per year as a result. And consuming healthcare that you don't normally use increases demand which naturally increases the cost of the services in question.

Re:You miss the point

[Overzeetop]

Of course not. Remeber that in government, you don't pay for what you consume, you pay for a portion of the general public consumption at a rate determined by your success. An odd stadard, to be sure, but again- a $160,000 bill is too much for most, so everybody chips in. The advantage is a more educated populous. One can argue good or bad, but it's hard to say that even a 20th percentile HS graduate is dumber than a kid that has never gone to school and grows up on the street.

By the way - have you paid over $15,000/year in taxes over the past 15 years? That's probably what it would take for your education costs plus the plus the back interest. If you have, then you've purchased a fairly expensive house, and no matter how you slice it, the system of government has enabled you to make a much more comforatble living than 90% of Americans - and that's pretty darned good.

Re:You miss the point

[mr_matticus]

The government pays for my health insurance only because the state of California currently is my employer (I'm a graduate student). If I were employed elsewhere, the government wouldn't pay for my insurance.

You miss the point. When you pay premiums to private companies, you're paying for services you don't use all the time.

Re:You miss the point

[mr_matticus]

Crap. I hadn't even begun the comment when it was submitted. The issue isn't that you pay for things you don't use--that's exactly the REASON for collective plans. By paying a nominal amount, you are contributing to a system where you have access to means of support. You might pay $5000/year for health insurance when your actual billed expenses are $1500. The rest is paying for service you don't need, and moreover for immense profits for the insurance company. But what if one day you need a $50,000 operation and $45,000 in hospital stay and recovery costs? That "extra" $3500 you lost for 20 years suddenly became very much worth it, saving you $25,000.

Likewise, when there are floods and natural disasters, you fund the government in part to help those people (not massive nuclear catastrophes, but the washing away of a small town of 50,000 somewhere. You'll never see any direct benefit from paying a little to help them out, but one day there could be a gas main explosion on your block, and you might benefit from that money. You might never need government unemployment, but if you get laid off and your savings run dry, it can help keep food on the table for a few weeks while you're searching for a new job. Maybe you'll never need our gigantic military, but the money the government spends on it pushes some of the most groundbreaking research conducted in this county, free of the constraints of commercial research (which has to be aborted when the money is gone). Subsidies keep crop outputs in sustainable levels at sustainable prices--without which the viability of America's largest industry and the stability of the economy would be jeopardized, which affects everyone. All of this ultimately comes back to benefit society.

There are huge problems with waste, lazy bastards taking advantage of the system, and administrative incompetence. But to say "I'm paying for services I don't use!" belies a selfish lack of concern for the wellbeing of society and a failure to understand that we live in an interconnected society where the success of someone else affects our success as well. If you feel you could do better on your own, you're welcome to try, but I will say this: there is a reason why no such society exists in our world.

Re:You miss the point

[khallow]

OTOH, I believe there is a genuine problem with people paying for a lot of services that are only used by a few to enrich themselves. I resent the continual implication that because we all use (in the sense of insurance, even if we never direct claim it) some services funded by government that this somehow means any service funded by government should get a pass. Frankly, I'm willing to receive less from the government in exchange for paying less to the government. I don't see this as an unreasonable request even if it does happen to be "selfish".

Further, when you talk of "benefit to society", you should consider the opportunity cost of spending that money versus not collecting it in the first place. For example, somewhere around a billion dollars a year is on corn ethanol subsidies which as far as I can tell takes as much fossil fuel equivalent to produce as it displaces. In comparison, sugar cane, which is a far more efficient source for ethanol, is propped up by around half a billion dollars in direct subsidies a year and protected by import tarriffs. Sugar prices in the States have been at times triple the global market for sugar. And peanut subsidies are enjoyed mainly by "quota holders". If you aren't a quota holder then you don't benefit unless you can rent from someone who does hold part of the quota. These quotas cost US consumers billions per year. In return we get the "benefit" of having our food supply controlled by business interests in the name of the "family farm" (of which admittedly there are a few still out there) and food security.

Justifying the "gigantic" military on the basis of the miniscule amount of research it funds is silly. After all, the government could fund the research directly (and actually it does through DARPA and similar programs). And military spending is one of the key hidden subsidies of the global oil infrastructure. Ie, the US military is a key factor in global oil security. But the cost of that protection isn't reflected at the gas pump. Nor are any potential environmental costs. Here, government spending distorts the market and results in US citizens consuming more oil than they would if the price of oil genuinely reflected the cost of obtaining that oil? We should stop being selfish here, right?

There are huge problems with waste, lazy bastards taking advantage of the system, and administrative incompetence. But to say "I'm paying for services I don't use!" belies a selfish lack of concern for the wellbeing of society and a failure to understand that we live in an interconnected society where the success of someone else affects our success as well. If you feel you could do better on your own, you're welcome to try, but I will say this: there is a reason why no such society exists in our world.

To boil down your argument, yes, government spending is out of control, but those who propose cutting back on government spending are "selfish". Any reduction in spending (no matter how misguided that spending was to start with) will eventually hurt you. Further, since government is everywhere, that's another reason not to try to control government spending. A little dose of fatalism to ward off the obstinate, I suppose.

And we should ignore a bunch of the vast inefficiencies that the US government has introduced into running a business, employing people, having kids, education, healthcare, retirement, etc because there's some minor insurance related benefit? I probably am selfish, but I'm willing to cut back on my consumption of government services and give up a few government-based protections in order to obtain a global reduction in government services and generate a collective benefit to all of US society. Are you? Or is your piece of the action too big to give up?

Finally, let us also recall that once government provides services in a certa

Re:You miss the point

[mr_matticus]

There's no problem with cutting back spending. There's a problem with abolishing services which legitimately help people simply because some people find them useless. You don't get government a la carte, and you shouldn't. People sometimes have to pay for services they don't use and don't want the government to offer, because maybe someone else feels the same about services you DO want left intact.

If you want to cut back military funding by 20%, I'm for that (not all at once, naturally), but I find it puzzling that you isolate DARPA from the military, when it is included in that massive DOD wedge of the budget. If you have an exit strategy for social security that takes us from the reality of 2007 to something better, there are many who would want to hear it.

Gas prices are too low, and taxes in this country are some of the lowest in the world. There are many other governments with greater tax rates which have avoided large sections of the culture of waste in this country. The current government revenue could do substantially more for this country, given that our military spending is so high. But a large part of that military spending facilitates the protection of our allies and allows them to have a smaller military themselves. In exchange, we have leverage for international support and good will from friendly nations, which have been squandered of late. We're still paying the same, but the advantages are gone. The reality is that there will be no cuts as long as the administration can hawk its doom and gloom about terrorism, and that there will no good will until Bush has been out of office for more than a term.

I'm happy to be paying 11 times the median tax in this country, because it's the only way it can work. I don't believe I'm being punished for success; I believe I'm doing more because I can, and as long as I'm paid in American dollars and drive on American roads, I owe my ability for ongoing success to the sacrifices made by other Americans before me. If it weren't for the New Deal, the Depression might have resulted in far deeper cuts. My family directly benefited from Kennedy's push to the moon. What frustrates me is the high cost and low yield of our military, which could easily be sent on humanitarian aid missions in force in times of peace--the training exercises cost money, so why not train while doing something productive as well? Our education system is a black hole for funding which can be fixed, but neither by destroying it nor by simply increasing the budget. The partisan interplay in this country creates strong pushes to do good things, but the haggling over the price tag inevitably results in a program that costs 80% as much as it needs to, and as a result can accomplish barely 30% of what it aimed to. A few extra dollars from the beginning would have made a world of difference.

You can build a crappy pool for $5000 and spend $40,000 maintaining it over the years, or you can do it right and spend $15,000 in the beginning and only have $5000 in maintenance. The political pressures in this country strongly favor the former. But again, political problems aren't solved by throwing money at them, nor are they solved by wiping them out altogether. The "happy medium" here, sadly, is a set of expensive and toothless programs. It's political stagflation, because half of us want our own money back and the other half want a functioning society. The compromise is worse than either extreme.

Re:You miss the point

[khallow]

You can build a crappy pool for $5000 and spend $40,000 maintaining it over the years, or you can do it right and spend $15,000 in the beginning and only have $5000 in maintenance. The political pressures in this country strongly favor the former. But again, political problems aren't solved by throwing money at them, nor are they solved by wiping them out altogether. The "happy medium" here, sadly, is a set of expensive and toothless programs. It's political stagflation, because half of us want our own money back and the other half want a functioning society. The compromise is worse than either extreme.

No, the problem is that the process is controlled by the people who want to get a piece of that $40,000 maintenance bill.

The real world

[chicago_scott]

Dag Hardyson, the national project leader for e-commerce for Skatteverket, the Swedish tax authority, was more forthcoming. Skatteverket is scheduled to join the Xenon project this year, and Hardyson said web crawling is well suited to tax enforcement.

"The internet is wide open for tools," said Hardyson. "It's much easier to handle than the real world."

That axe swings both ways. The Internet is wide open for "counter-tools" as well.

Re:The Federal income tax is unconstitutional

[fyngyrz]

Therefore, I do believe a citizen should be allowed to effectively opt-out of government if s/he wishes to. Of course, that means no taxes, but it also means no services. Have fun getting to work with your private highways.

Services can (and often are) paid for by use taxes, and are often state provided and implemented, not federal. Highways are paid for by fuel taxes, for instance, and schooling by land taxes. I think one needs to draw a very hard line between federal services and federal government aggression.

This whole going to war "on my behalf" is complete and utter nonsense, for instance; I do not support this, and the fact that I am paying for it is a result of coercion and nothing else whatsoever. That camel ass-sniffer isn't worth risking the life of a single American service person, nor is he worth violating the sovereignty of another country. When we do that, we're inviting the same here, and I can't go there.

Likewise the "drug war" against the citizens, government regulation of sexuality, promotion of, and participation in, religion, land thefts without even a hope of rational compensation when the taking is against the will of the landholder (how do you compensate for the taking of an ancestral home, or the loss of a particular scenic view, or the loss of an investment property that has not yet come to your intended term, or the loss of where you had your children? The presumption that "market value" is adequate for someone who does not want to sell would be hysterical, if it were actually funny. As it is, it's just tragic.)

In any case, the ability to opt out of paying for such excursions far beyond my beliefs and ethics by any legal mechanism would at least give me input to the process and it would also remove my complicity, though I argue that as my taxes are coerced from me and used to reach towards goals that disgust me, my complicity is questionable anyway.

The main problem for me is that this government does not represent my views in the vast majority of it's dealings, laws and intents; nor does any government anywhere else, as nearly as I can tell. I choose to live in peace within the country that is closest to at least having a foundation that appeals to me (the US constitution, in particular) but the fact that the constitution is basically being ignored reduces the value of its supposed foundation for the federal and state governments (state, because of the bill of rights and amendment 14.)

Re:IRS

[adsl]

In the US is not there a Federally authorized tax holiday in Federal Tax charges re transactions on the internet? ANd this is likely going to be extended. It's the individual US States who might want such info. But each State would then have to have it's own spiders.

Re: the tax man cometh

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> I guess this is further evidence that there are two things one cannot escape - death and taxes

Unless you incorporate yourself for employment purposes. When is anyone going to catch these tax cheats?

Selective enforcement. These tax cheats over here are bad, and they are convenient targets because they are considered sins. Those tax cheats over there are good and they are to be left alone because they help keep the economy scam rolling.

It's not like the smokescreen is that difficult to see through.

Doesn't matter, we get higher taxes no matter what

[walterbyrd]

The feds just piss away your tax dollars, no matter how much you give them.

Don't believe me? Quick: what do the feds do with your tax dollars? Schools? No schools are 95% paid for by local taxes. Roads? No, even interstates are paid for state taxes.

Even with Iraq going on, only about 18% of tax dollars go down that rat hole.

What happens to the rest? Can you say "special interestes?" I knew that you could.

Re: the tax man cometh

[cayenne8]

"Unless you incorporate yourself for employment purposes. When is anyone going to catch these [slashdot.org] tax cheats?"

Dude, where do you get off calling me a tax cheat? All I do is what is legally available to do? Are you saying that in the battle for the govt. to take as much of your money as possible, vs. you trying to keep as much as possible, that the avg. citizen (me) should take it lying down and not try to keep as much of my own money as possible????

Lord...I can't believe someone would say I'm the cheat. I fscking govt. is the greedy bastard trying to keep taking our hard earned dollars, instead of trying to live within a budget like everyone else has to do.

A cheat is someone who goes outside the law to do something. I'd say a halfway intelligent person looks for ways to do things toward their advantage. Hell, if I'm a 'tax cheat' for merely trying to look for way to keep my money...I guess anyone that tries to deduct anything is a cheat, anyone who puts retirement money away pre-tax is a cheat. I supposed the only non-cheat is the one that only does the EZ form and lets U.S. take all he wants.....

Those tax laws and deductions are there for a reason...in my case, the "S" corp is there to allow and help small businesses start and grow. Keeping more of your money is a good way of encouraging that. I'd say a smart person that takes every advantage that is offered them, is certainly not a 'cheat'.

Re:FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

[botkiller]

If there is anything we've seen as of late though, it is that even FOIA is no good when it comes to something the .gov has decided they wish to conceal. It is more than likely that the government here in the US is using this robot, and has been for a long time. You won't even know you're being audited for what you did last year until three years from now - and at that, you can be audited at any time, for any reason. Taxation without representation went out the window a long time ago when government became too big for it's britches. Look at it this way; you're supposed to report the money you make at a garage sale to the government. A garage sale! You could make one dollar, and the IRS wants their piece of it. Is it right? No. Is it legal for them? Yes. But, the fact remains that they won't ever be able to track all the money coming and going over the net and in everyday business. Paypal and Ebay all say that they do not divulge your personal info to anyone (though when the government shows up at their door, I'm sure they're at beck and call). Ebay has even led campaigns to stop the proposals to enforce a different tax on every item sold to and from every state. Paypal is a bank you can be a part of with little to no proof of who you are. This is the future of economy. If the government wants in, they'll either have to ask nicely, or do it by force - I imagine they'll choose the latter. When, we can't know for sure. But, corporations, huge, behemoth corporations, still get away every year with paying little to nothing in taxes. Stop picking on the little guy.

How are we to believe that we are to "do the right thing", and report every single cent we make in a year, when we currently have a national deficit too large to imagine, and a government that continues to spend money in ways we'll never be able to fathom, on things which may never affect us, and we are not made privy to the information of how and when our taxes are spent and on what?